A lot of law professors write about Supreme Court developments. I wonder what legal scholarship about the Supreme Court looks like in a world of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court, with 5 Justices unambiguous conservatives. Does it try to meet the Court where it is? Reject it? /1
Of course, many different scholars write about SCOTUS in diff ways, on different topics. I realize I'm painting with a broad brush. But I suppose my main interest is in the internalists -- the ones who write about doctrine, implicitly or expicitly recommending different paths. /2
How many will try to speak the Court's language, such as by echoing or recognizing originalist methods? How many will just be in opposition, especially in light of the circumstances of how the Court came to have its conservative supermajority ? /3
Will the focus turn to state constitutions? Or Congress? Or more external approaches, like those rooted in political science or empirical methods? Curious if others have thoughts. /end
UPDATE: Comments that are about the subject of the thread are particularly welcome.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I now have Gorsuch's book. On Aaron Swartz, he gives a remarkably one-sided view of the facts. Swartz "connected his computer to MIT's network," the book says, and "he began downloading articles from JSTOR." /1
The book then quotes his attorney as saying that what Swartz downloaded "wasn't worth anything! It was a bunch, of like, the 1942 edition of the Journal of Botany!" /2
The book then talks about how prosecutors charged him based on that, an obvious overreach for such minor conduct. Downloading a worthless botany article!
BREAKING: 5th Circuit, splitting with 4th Circuit, rules that geofencing is a search and warrants to search for geofence records are inherently unconstitutional. It may be that *all* Internet warrants are unconstitutional by this reasoning. Lordy.
#N ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/2…
I think that's an incredible result. As I read the opinion, it's too invasive to allow geofencing without a warrant, but it's too invasive to get a warrant for it, so no geofencing is ever allowed. This is bananas.
And remember the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't hear 4th Amendment cases anymore. So if the 5th Circuit doesn't review this en banc, we may have broad surveillance allowed in most of the country and no surveillance allowed in the 5th Circuit.
I'm not one to defend Trump, but I disagree w/the many claiming that Trump said there would be no more elections if he wins. I hear him more as just saying he'll do such a fantastic job he'll save the country so the stakes of future elections will be a lot lower.
Responses to this tweet are sad. As my followers know, I despise Trump, and I criticize him almost every day and have since 2015. He is an authoritarian, and he flirts with fascism; I urge you to vote against him and save America.
But that doesn't change this clip! Trump says horrible stuff every day; we don't need to pretend that every word out of his mouth is equally horrible. Don't lose the plotline, folks.
Incidentally, if you are horrified by my reaction — at the concept of actually watching the video to see what the video contains, and not just running with your tribe's chosen message — you are invited to unfollow me, or, if you don't follow me, mute or block me. I won't mind.
This viral video, and the comments to it, brings up a common misunderstanding. No, the police don't have to tell you why they're detaining or arresting you. And no, they don't have to read you Miranda rights if they arrest you. They just need probable cause. That's it.
Ok, the receipts. First, whether the police have to tell you why you're being arrested came up in a 2005 Supreme Court decision, Devenpeck v. Alford. Here's Justice Scalia writing for the 8-0 court, concluding, nope, no such requirement. tile.loc.gov/storage-servic…
Second, Miranda. There is no abstract right to Miranda warnings. Instead, SCOTUS has said that it's a violation of Miranda if an officer interrogates someone in custody, gets a statement from them, and then uses it in court against them.
This is a really wild result—a finding that, in a simulated case, federal judges don't follow the law but that law students do—but I wonder if there is an explanation the authors don't identify. 🧵 journals.sagepub.com/doi/epub/10.11…
In the hypothetical case, you are a judge on the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and you are deciding a defendant’s appeal of his conviction for war crimes by the ICTY’s trial chamber.
As a judge, you have to decide if there was enough evidence that the defendant aided and abetted the war crime. You had some cases saying what the standard was (either high or low), and facts making the defendant more or less sympathetic.
It's relatively easy for law schools to create a culture that values teaching, as professors interact w/students every day & get teaching evaluations. But a common question for law professors, & especially associate deans: How can you create a culture that values scholarship? 🧵
No easy answers, but I suspect the biggest thing is by example; showing that it's valued. A few (among many) possible examples:
(1) By the Dean and Associate Dean attending the faculty workshop. Leadership being involved in the scholarly process sends a big signal of values.
(2) Having the school's website and social media accounts flag new scholarship by the faculty. Again, it's a signal of values; we think this is important.